User talk:Mosmof/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Dwight Howard

Did you not read what I wrote? It IS a recognized record. I don't know how much more clearly this can be stated.--Hoops gza (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I do not know which talk page you are referring to. I checked the article's discussion page and could not find it.--Hoops gza (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Patience my dear, I just started a new section and I was trying to be thorough. And could you point me to a reliable source that lists Howard as a season leader in games played? --Mosmof (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

List of year-by-year leaders in games played: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/g_yearly.html

If you have doubts about whether the NBA acknowledges "games played" as an official statistic, this should remove any doubt: http://www.nba.com/history/records/regular_miscellaneous.html

I can understand not including "games started" - although that is easily searchable via the site in the first link I have posted here - but pretending that games played isn't a statistic, and that Howard has not been a league leader in said statistic, is ridiculous. It's as much of a statistic as wins and losses.--Hoops gza (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I am referring to User:Chensiyuan when I speak of pretending this isn't a stat, not you. I realize that you are simply trying to be prudent about the situation.--Hoops gza (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it also a violation of wikipedia's neutral view policy to actively promote Dwight Howard's Christian values in light of the actual facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YanShen (talk • contribs) 03:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where the article "actively promotes" Howard's Christian values. If the current wording is troublesome, I'm pretty sure there's a better way to go about it than introducing an unsourced/unattributed editorial that somehow goes into a tangent about Carrie Jeans and an OMG SOCIETY'S GOING TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET rant. --Mosmof (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

that editing was done to make a point but quite frankly your response is precisely why i chose to make the edit in the first place, knowing fully well it would be taken down within a short period of time. i fail to see how labeling dwight howard as a devout christian in light of the well known fact that he has fathered a child out of wedlock is in any way "neutral". and by the way, this is coming from someone who is an atheist, simply calling out hypocrisy when he sees it. perhaps the word devout should be removed, or the phrase should be amended to "self professed devout christian" —Preceding unsigned comment added by YanShen (talk • contribs)

I hate to get all policy-y, but WP:POINT and all. --Mosmof (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mosmof, you still seem unwilling to address my fundamental concern. How can it be considered neutral for an article to refer to Dwight Howard as a devout Christian in light of the well known fact that he's fathered a child out of wedlock, with a magic power dancer I believe. You seem to be avoiding this precise issue. I'm trying to hold you accountable personally to wikipedia's own policy of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YanShen (talk • contribs) 23:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I'm unwilling to address your concern. It's just hard to take you seriously when, by your own admission, you introduced an edit you knew was counter to Wikipedia policies so you could prove a point and expose those wascally Wikipedia editors for their hypocrisy and feel smug in your superiority.

It's great you've noticed something that needs fixing in the article. That's a great first step! Then you decided to make it worse, just so you could complain that your screwup was cleaned up but the existing screwup wasn't. That's really weird.

Anyway, why go to all this effort to hold me accountable (it'll probably take a few more exchanges to come around, be patient!) when you could simply edit the article in a way that meets Wikipedia policies? But whatever floats your boat. Mosmof (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness, shouldn't the wikipedia editors be expected to be held to a high standard? After all, you guys are the ones who wield a high degree of power on this site. If I had edited out the phrase devout Christian, someone probably would've put it back up within minutes, maybe even yourself. Sometimes you have to be unorthodox in order to make a point online. And no I have nothing against you, or wikipedia, or its editors. I think you guys are all great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.113.215 (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't really give two shits about Howard's faith. If you'd made a reasonable edit to that sentence (like you suggested above), I would've been happy as a clam. It was just that your edit was egregiously editorial-y. --Mosmof (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I apologize for my presumption that my edit would've been quickly reverted. YanShen (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems with File:Silverstone.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Silverstone.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.motogp.com/en/photos/2008/Silverstone+circuit+overview. As a copyright violation, File:Silverstone.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Silverstone.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Silverstone.jpg and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at File talk:Silverstone.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Silverstone.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

THIS IS MY IMAGE.

I HAVE EMAILED MOTOGP. Stating they need to credit me and the un-edited original version can be found @ http://www.facebook.com/#/photo.php?pid=2295466&id=526015282 - Albeit, a smaller version of the original file.

Jamaal Westerman

I just noticed you added an image that actually shows his face, ha. But, I noticed you didn't re-add WP:ALT text to the old image and didn't add it for the new one. If it's not too troublesome could you remember to do this in the future? Cheers,--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that was standard practice. Noted, filed and whatnot. --Mosmof (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, would love your help

Apologies for yesterday. Had a long and stressful day. But thank you, as well, for contributing to the Q-Notes article. I know I have a conflict of interest, but I do think it is important that North Carolina's only statewide LGBT news-media and its history be chronicled on Wikipedia in some way. I've added other tags to the piece and more citations. I'd love your assistance and guidance; it seems you're a bit more up to speed on the Wikipedia game than me. Matt (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for not responding to you sooner. I appreciate your message. I haven't had time to do serious WIkiediting the past few days but let me know if I can be of any help. --Mosmof (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Lowell band issue

I'm all for keeping the band article obviously, but I have also worked to remove promotional material that has been added to the page by another editor. I am more than willing to discuss this on the article's talk page though. I really haven't added much other than the basic information, so if you would be willing to remove it and inform the editor, I'm willing to work out a compromise. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Willy-northpole.jpg

Hi Mosmof. Thank you for all the great work you have been doing tagging files for speedy deletion. Just a friendly reminder: files only qualify for speedy deletion under criterion F9 if they are clearly non-free content (prove this by providing an external link) and if the uploader has asserted that the image is licensed under a free license. If only one of these criteria is satisfied, then the file does not qualify for speedy deletion; instead, tag the file with {{subst:nld}}. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd assumed that in very obvious cases like this, images were deleted whether or not the uploader claimed a free license (as long as fair use wasn't claimed, obviously). --Mosmof (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Terrance Thomas

Just FYI, I removed the prod from Terrance Thomas because I think the topic at least merits some discussion at AFD. He never played in the NBA, but I know I've seen some player bios survive deletion on the strength of the players' overseas careers. We should bring the article to a wider audience to see what they think.

Zagalejo^^^ 06:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Rosseti.JPG

I take it by myself. They copy from Wiki, not me copy from them. Albert (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Statbunker

Trying to work out why Charlie Hodgson external link was promotional?? Can you shed some light on this for me please.

[ (user: rugbystats}] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugbystats (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for the reply and thanks for putting Charlie's stats back up there - think the Nani one would be of really benefit to users some great stats in there that are not anywhere else!!! Added a couple more Saints players in the rugby and they all have links to the Guinness Premiership site but are broken

Hopeit is ok to use you as a sounding board as i get used to this!!!

Regards Stephen

On another point can we remove links that do not work Mike Cat has two links in his external list that do not work ??

Stephen

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugbystats (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippines–Romania relations has been nominated for deletion again here

You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No fun art

Hello. I made a mistake in C. Ronaldo's article, but already asked for help. My work is not "fun art" but very serious. Please bring it back. Friendly, --ΑΝώΔυΝος (talk) 07:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Jamison

Jamison deal was just announced I'm to tired to start editing every article.... [1] Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sol Campbell

Hi - sorry about that. I was in bit of a strop last night; nothing personal. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're crazy, I'm daemonic! Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Chapel Hill, NC Link

Hi - I am new to wikipedia. I added a link today at 17:11, 22 February 2010 to the Chapel Hill, NC page. The link was to nccrime.us (which has only Chapel Hill data) and it was removed. The cities around us like Durham and Raleigh put crime on a map, but Chapel Hill has no such site, so I took all the police data and created such a site. My addition to dmoz.org is pending. Is the objection the wording I used or is it that the site needs to exist longer? I appreciate your helping me understand. Thanks! Chapelhillbilly

Angels logos

I would love to see where it says the logos cannot be on sub articles (exact quote please), but to appease you I have put rationales on the logos. --Andyhi18 (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I continue to read over what you sent me and I see nothing that disallows the use of an image that has contextual significance in a season article. --Andyhi18 (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It was the logo used at the time --Andyhi18 (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Anaheim Angels logo

Sorry about that. While I was away from my computer, my dog clicked the undo button for your revision. It was an honest mistake. I'll make sure he doesn't do it again. PM800 (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Iverson

Have the 76ers bought out his contract? It's not clear to me what official action they have taken. As far as I can tell, Iverson is still taking up a roster space. Zagalejo^^^ 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Andre Dawkins

I agree with snapalapscholes. It is not irrelevant to know about peoples personal life. Why would people make an autobiography? Please stop "correcting the page." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andredawkins410 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Steven Gatena

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Steven Gatena, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

mk5384 (A.I.)

Did you even bother to read what I said on the talk page? I said that I make constructive edits; that I will not edit war, even when I am right. I said on the talk page that whilst the information is incorrect, I will not be doing any more reverts, because that helps noone. And even after that ,you want to give me a hard time? I dropped the issue, and now you come and stir the pot, by saying that even though I didn't violate 3RR, you have figured a way that you might be able to get me into trouble anyhow. Do you have any idea how childish that is?Mk5384 (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian

Mosmof: This is from you on the talk page - Has something changed since then ???? Please simply continue with what has been on the page thus far ???

Please read - Quote from you re Torossian... Has something changed ?

I've actually removed mention of the rabbi impersonation from here and moved it to the 5W page, since none of the media reports connect Ronn with the incident directly - as far as reliable sources can tell, it was an indiscretion by the firm, not Ronn. So we can move the discussion to the talk page there: Talk:5W Public Relations. No, I'm not willing to identify myself, and attempting to out me is against Wiki policy (well, except when there's clear evidence of COI, of course). All I can say is that I have an extensive edit history where Agriprocessor- or Torossian-related topics constitute a tiny, tiny percentage. So it's highly unlikely that I am Rosenberg, unless of course, Mr. Rosenberg sneaked onto my computer during a get-together at my apartment. You've mentioned this "federal laws" and "lawsuits" before, and I'm not sure where you're getting it. It may have been in the older edits you kept deleting, but in the rewrite that I did, I don't mention any legal action, pending, threatened, or otherwise. Anyway, the information in the rewrite comes entirely from independent, non-primary sources. So unless you're willing to question the credibility of JTA or the Forward or PR Week, I'm not sure how much you can question the content. You're more than free to do so at Talk:5W Public Relations, obviously. --Mosmof (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk)

Thank you for bringing my infinite wisdom to my attention. I didn't realize how awesome I was. Also, are you sure you're using enough question marks????? --Mosmof (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please advise why celebrities are referenced but larger corporations are not ? Torossian's firm is primarily known as a corporate agency, especially given recent rankings of being a top 15 agency. You also removed Internal links for no apparent reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The internal links - I must've missed them when I did a revert - I find it more convenient to do that rather than manually edit the text, which leaves me open to error. I didn't really erase - I figured summarizing was better than detailing, since we're talking about the CEO rather than getting into the nitty gritty about the firm. --Mosmof (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

If we are not talking "nitty gritty", than how about removing Joe Francis ? If not, leave Coke and Mcdonalds... A negative mention in 2005 is relevant but positive in 2009 isnt ? (Biz Week is the source) Alternatively, I could live with going back to where it was on Friday before these edits, assuming you can as well ? We both agreed the edit which was made was improper... and its been well enough for a while ? How about it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Also if Goldberg is relevant as a blogger, a major front page feature in The Jerusalem Post should surely also be relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't get the comparison here, but sure, knock yourself out. --Mosmof (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

OK will leave it alone from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, as long as you leave it alone, since you don't own it and all. --Mosmof (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I made some minor edits for readability and to avoid clutter, but I'm done for now. Happy trails! --Mosmof (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I dont own it. Minor edits dont mean scrubbing Inc Nor the firms top 15 ranking. Neither you nor I made the change which started this round which we both agree didnt belong there. Cant we now leave what was there pre Friday ? You cant take out the firms size when discussing nor Inc. 500 which is more important than a fringe client like Francis ? Need we both keep spending efforts on this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Really if you arent biased you must accept that the firms rankings and size are more relevant than Joe Francis as a client. They are surely relevant and shouldnt be scrubbed. They are surely more relevant than an attorney firing them or a blogger (Goldberg) writing negatives but those have been accepted. Can you now accept this page as it is ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Will ask you again pre this whole debate why you allowed this info to stay 2+ years and now dont ? And why something so trivial as a lawyer firing a company is more important than being named 1 of largest firms in US ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR note

Hi, you have been mentioned at the 3RR noticeboard, here thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR complaint about your edits at Ronn Torossian

Hello Mosmof. Please see WP:AN3#User:Mosmof reported by 68.173.122.113 (Result: ). I'm aware of the past history of this article, and the evident COI from at least one IP. Temporary semiprotection might be considered. Consider adding your own comment at the 3RR board. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Request

Please don't call me or other editors "dicks". Thanks. –Turian (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't calling you a dick, but I thought you were acting like one. Your request is noted. --Mosmof (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Pablo Aimar

Please stop screwing around this page. Flag icons are useful for people who might not know from what country a team is from. Most players pages include them. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.193.17 (talk • contribs) 14:18, April 30, 2010

I'm sure users can click on a team name if they're curious enough. And who are "most players"? --Mosmof (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Pelé,
• Maradona,
• Messi.

I could go on...Also all international club competitions use flag icons. I think this sort of thing should be standart on all similar pages/sections. Besides I like having flag icons. I would like to undo your last edit and will appreciate if you let it be. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.193.17 (talk • contribs) April 30, 2010 15:52

So you listed three articles. Even if it's true that "most" articles use (which I haven't found to be the case, but let's assume you're right for the sake of this discussion), flags shouldn't be used except where there is relevance to the countries they represent. For example, international club competitions where clubs are more or less representatives of their national leagues. And WP:ILIKEIT is almost never a good reason to do something on Wikipedia. But if you really think flags should be included nilly willy in footballer articles, then by all means, bring it up on WP:FOOTY. --Mosmof (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Lee Jun Ki has many unsourced info I suggest removing them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.108.148 (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)